On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Interaction with the Python developers
==
I open an issue for each bug found in CPython. I describe how to reproduce it
and try to write a patch. I have learn to always
Neal Norwitz nnorw...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Victor Stinner
victor.stin...@haypocalc.com wrote:
Along with others expressed here, you have my warm thanks, Victor, for
your continuing efforts at fuzz testing Python and especially for
careful reporting of the
On approximately 1/26/2010 7:35 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of David Lyon:
Glen wrote:
So let's say that the .zip file was dropped onto the Desktop or start
menu. It would have an icon, then.
It would have an icon. But nothing to identify it as a python
On approximately 1/26/2010 7:50 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Cameron Simpson:
My point was that I look on python builtins like list and dict as highly
optimised, highly efficient facilities. That means that I expect a list
to be very very much like a linear array as one
Glen wrote:
So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
a .zip internally.
So this cures the icon too, maybe you realized that.
It takes it to 80% cured.
Being the purist that I am I still long for the day when I
can see a python package in my file manager with
On 27/01/2010 11:21, David Lyon wrote:
Glen wrote:
So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
a .zip internally.
So this cures the icon too, maybe you realized that.
It takes it to 80% cured.
Being the purist that I am I still long
David Lyon wrote:
Being the purist that I am I still long for the day when I
can see a python package in my file manager with a proper
icon. Icons only cost $400 to get done professionally at
a graphic artist. That's roughly the same as a round of
drinks at a python conference.
If a
David Lyon wrote:
Glen wrote:
So let's further say that the .zip file was named .py, instead, but was
a .zip internally.
The only one thing I have to say about that is that it makes
embedding of .py files recursive.
No it doesn't. The mechanisms involved for processing the top-level
Yesterday, I said:
On approximately 1/25/2010 9:27 PM, came the following characters
from the keyboard of David Lyon:
Firstly, it doesn't create create desktop shortcuts - sorry users
need those. Where do the programs go?
So let's say that the .zip file was dropped onto the Desktop or
start
Cameron Simpson wrote:
The proposed change to make pop(0) O(1) involves adding a base offset
to the internal list implementation. Doesn't that incur a (small)
overhead to _every_ list operation? Doesn't that weaken list as the
as efficient as possible implementation of choice for array-like
On 27/01/2010 11:21, Michael Foord wrote:
.. If a Python programmer wants
to create an application that is properly 'installed' on Windows then
the *right* thing to do is to create an installer - and that uses
infrastructure not provided by a language, but that is built into
Windows. Tools
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Glenn Linderman v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com wrote:
As a newcomer to python, I must say that I wouldn't expect
a list to be like an array. I'd expect it more to be
like a list... many implementations of lists (linked lists,
in particular) make it O(1) to add to the front or
On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:09 , Glenn Linderman wrote:
Why can't we just be like the rest of the universe and have one
icon type for packages and one icon type for applications.
Double click them and they get filed in the right place.
What platform files things in the right place when you
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au wrote:
From: Cameron Simpson c...@zip.com.au
| The idea that CPython should not be improved because it
would spoil
| programmers strikes me as a thin, even desparate
objection.
Hey, I even used the word thin to describe my concern!
Nick wrote:
The only one thing I have to say about that is that it makes
embedding of .py files recursive.
No it doesn't. The mechanisms involved for processing the top-level
zipfile and those for processing the .py text files within that zipfile
are completely different.
Well, if it has
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
My concept of Python lists is that they should have at least the same
performance characteristics as an ordinary to-do list that you make with
pencil, paper, and an eraser.
When you complete the first task on your to-do
David Lyon wrote:
Installers aren't built into windows.
Umm, yeah they are. msi's don't install themselves.
Since Python has distutils, and it builds installers, why
shouldn't we be using that? (apart from the fact that it
is slightly broken)
I believe you're confused about what distutils
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com wrote:
From: Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com
Cc: python-dev@python.org
Date: Wednesday, January
Glenn Linderman, 27.01.2010 10:13:
As a newcomer to python, I must say that I wouldn't expect a list to be
like an array. I'd expect it more to be like a list... many
implementations of lists (linked lists, in particular) make it O(1) to
add to the front or back. An array can be used to
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com writes:
The big practical concern is actually the memory cost of adding yet
another pointer (potentially 8 bytes of data) to every list object, even
empty ones.
It needn't be, actually. Why?
You only need to store this other pointer when you have an
Daniel Stutzbach daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com writes:
I don't think your analogy works, unless you recopy your to-do lists whenever
you complete a task in the middle of the list.
I think his analogy suggests that his to-do list is a doubly-linked list ;)
Or perhaps an array with lazy
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 14:23, David Lyon david.l...@pythontest.org wrote:
We even get to install a python package directly from our
browser using this scheme. I don't understand why anybody
wouldn't want that.
So, go ahead, make it happen. No one is stopping you.
--
Lennart Regebro: Python,
On 27/01/2010 13:04, David Lyon wrote:
On 27/01/2010 11:21, Michael Foord wrote:
.. If a Python programmer wants
to create an application that is properly 'installed' on Windows then
the *right* thing to do is to create an installer - and that uses
infrastructure not provided by a
Hi (as a simple user),
I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
I imagine that startup time and memory was also critical for V8.
thanks
--
William Dodé - http://flibuste.net
Informaticien Indépendant
--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org wrote:
From: Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com
Cc: Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com, python-dev@python.org
Date: Tuesday, January
Hi Nick,
I believe you're confused about what distutils is for.
Tell me..
It generates
platform independent metadata that can be used to create platform
specific installers. It also generates some platform independent Python
specific installation formats that are useful for developers, but
At 01:08 AM 1/27/2010 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Of course, if you want to create a ZIP named .py package that is an
application installer, you could do that, too. It might be handy
for the case where not everything in the application can be a .py,
.pyc, or .pyo... shared libraries cannot
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 16:24, David Lyon david.l...@pythontest.org wrote:
Think how useful it would be to ship Django or Plone from a zip box...
Plone has installers, and is very easily installed on Windows, for
those who want to try it.
For real production installations you don't want that
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, John Arbash Meinel john.arbash.mei...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Arbash Meinel john.arbash.mei...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com
Cc: Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org, Nick Coghlan
On 27/01/2010 13:04, Michael Foord wrote:
Installers aren't built into windows.
The infrastructure for building and using msi installers are part of
Windows and the Windows development environment. For example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa370834%28VS.85%29.aspx
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
Fair enough, but that's still wasteful of memory, keeping around a bunch of
None elements because you can't inexpensively delete them.
Even if there are many references to it, there is only one None element.
--
Daniel
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Neal Norwitz nnorw...@gmail.com writes:
I definitely hope you continue to find and fix problems in Python. It
helps everyone who uses Python even those who will never know to thank
you. Who knows, someone might even
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, John Arbash Meinel john.arbash.mei...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Arbash Meinel john.arbash.mei...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Steve Howell
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:46 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu wrote:
I'm a relative outsider to core development (I'm just a Plone release
manager), but'll allow myself a couple of questions. Feel free to
ignore them, if you
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com wrote:
From: Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com
Cc: John Arbash Meinel john.arbash.mei...@gmail.com,
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Virgil Dupras hs...@hardcoded.net wrote:
Why is this thread still going? It seems to me that the
case for this
change is very weak. Lists, like dicts and tuples, are
used
*everywhere* and in *vast* quantities. Making them grow by
4 or 8
bytes each for such a corner
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:26 AM, William Dode w...@flibuste.net wrote:
Hi (as a simple user),
I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
I imagine that startup time and memory was also critical
David As a downstream distributor of Python, a major pain point for me
David is when Python embeds a copy of a library's source code, rather
David than linking against a system library (zlib, libffi and expat
David spring to mind): if bugs (e.g. security issues) arise in a
On 27-01-2010, Collin Winter wrote:
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:26 AM, William Dode w...@flibuste.net wrote:
Hi (as a simple user),
I'd like to know why you didn't followed the same way as V8 Javascript,
or the opposite, why for V8 they didn't choose llvm ?
I imagine that
Hi David,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
As a downstream distributor of Python, a major pain point for me is when
Python embeds a copy of a library's source code, rather than linking
against a system library (zlib, libffi and expat spring to
Hi William,
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM, William Dode w...@flibuste.net wrote:
The startup time and memory comsumption are a limitation of llvm that
their developers plan to resolve or is it only specific to the current
python integration ? I mean the work to correct this is more on U-S
Lists are indeed used *everywhere* and *vast* quantities, which is
why optimizations on list operations are worthwhile to pursue.
Unfortunately, the proposed change is a pessimisation, not an
optimisation. We probably shouldn't discuss it further, at least not
until a PEP gets written by its
In my mind Python's lists should have the same performance
characteristics as the paper list (or better).
I think you'll have to adjust your mind then. People have
proposed various data structures that *do* work efficiently as
paper lists. So if you want a paper list, use one of them, rather
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com wrote:
We absolutely do not want CPython to include a copy of LLVM in its
source tree. Unladen Swallow has done this to make it easier to pick
up changes to LLVM's codebase as we make them, but this is not a
viable model
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
From: Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: python-dev@python.org
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 6:15 AM
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at
gmail.com writes:
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 11:34 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Collin Winter collinwin...@google.com
wrote:
We absolutely do not want CPython to include a copy of LLVM in its
source tree. Unladen Swallow has done this to make it easier to pick
up changes to
Chris Bergstresser ch...@subtlety.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Neal Norwitz nnorw...@gmail.com writes:
Who knows, someone might even write a book about Fusil someday
about a topic as obscure as Beautiful Testing. :-)
Your
On 27 January 2010 08:37, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:46 -0800, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Hanno Schlichting ha...@hannosch.eu
wrote:
I'm a relative outsider to core development (I'm just a Plone release
manager),
Le mercredi 27 janvier 2010 à 11:49 -0800, Steve Howell a écrit :
A slightly more sane alternative would be to leave ob_size and ob_item
alone with their current semantics, and then replace allocated with
self-excess, where
self-excess == excess_above * 256 + excess_below.
Or we could use
This is a repost from a posting I sent last August. One of the issues
(the hg-eol extension) is largely resolved, so I'm only asking for
help on the other issue.
In this thread, I'd like to collect things that ought to be done
but where Dirkjan has indicated that he would prefer if somebody else
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
From: Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: python-dev@python.org
Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 12:41 PM
Le mercredi 27 janvier 2010 à 11:49
-0800,
On Jan 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Lists are indeed used *everywhere* and *vast* quantities, which is
why optimizations on list operations are worthwhile to pursue.
Unfortunately, the proposed change is a pessimisation, not an
optimisation. We probably shouldn't discuss
Steve Howell wrote:
There is also the possibility that my initial patch can be refined by
somebody smarter than myself to eliminate the particular tradeoff.
In fact, Antoine Pitrou already suggested an approach, although I
agree that it kind of pushes the boundary of sanity. :)
I'm actually
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
Steve Howell wrote:
There is also the possibility that my initial patch can be refined by
somebody smarter than myself to eliminate the particular tradeoff.
In fact, Antoine Pitrou already suggested an approach, although I
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually wondering if you could apply some of the implementation
strategies discussed here to grant O(1) random access to arbitrary
elements of a deque.
I haven't looked at the deque code in a long time, but I
Are you free to chat about this in IRC?
I completely unconvinced that there are use cases for
wanting face random access to the i-th element of a large deque
that is changing sizes on each end. The meaning of the
20th index changes as the data moves. It becomes pointless
to store indices to
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, am not sure if this affects psyco or the other
implementations such as Jython which may implement
lists in terms of existing Java containers.
Or Unladen Swallow. I'm -1 on mucking with any of the
Alex Gaynor wrote:
I don't see how that's possible. The linked list is a pretty well
known data structure and arbitrary lookups are O(n) in it. Using the
unrolled-linked-list data structure python uses you can make it faster
by a constant factor, but not O(1). There are other structures
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
Cc: Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com,
Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettinger at gmail.com writes:
AFAICT, the performance of the proposal:
* increases space requirements by a small fixed amount
Well, given my proposal (assuming it turns out ok) it doesn't.
* s.append() performance slightly degraded.
Why?
* the resize
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Raymond Hettinger
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, am not sure if this affects psyco or the other
implementations such as Jython which may implement
lists in
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Daniel Stutzbach
dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually wondering if you could apply some of the implementation
strategies discussed here to grant O(1) random access to
From: Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net
raymond.hettinger at gmail.com writes:
AFAICT, the performance of the proposal:
* increases space requirements by a small fixed
amount
Well, given my proposal (assuming it turns out ok) it
doesn't.
* s.append() performance slightly
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Steve Howell wrote:
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] patch to make list.pop(0) work in O(1) time
To: Martin v. Löwis mar...@v.loewis.de
Cc:
I noticed that in the py3k doc 'mktemp' is marked as deprecated since
Python 2.3 [1], but the function is still there and doesn't raise any
warning. Looking at the source I found out that there is a warning, but
it is commented out [2], the reason being because they are too annoying.
There was
FWIW, deque indexing for small deques is already O(1)
and somewhat fast. You only get O(n) degradation
(with a small contant factor) on large deques.
Hi.
For small dequeues (smaller than a constant), you have to have O(1)
operations, by definition :-)
Cheers,
fijal
On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
FWIW, deque indexing for small deques is already O(1)
and somewhat fast. You only get O(n) degradation
(with a small contant factor) on large deques.
Hi.
For small dequeues (smaller than a constant), you have to have O(1)
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
* the current design encourages people to use
the right data structure for a given need. the
proposed change makes the trades-off murky and
implementation
David Lyon wrote:
Nick Coghlan:
I'd like to see Python 3+ be more suitable for full distributable
applications over 2.X and earlier.
Out of curiousity, have you tried experimenting with the zipfile
execution capabilities in 2.6/3.1? A major part of that was to make
multi-file Python
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com
* the current design encourages people to use
the right data structure for a given need.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
I am not sure why Python lists get all the syntax sugar and promotion over
deque, when in reality, Python lists implement a pretty useless data
structure. Python lists are a glorification of a C array built on top of a
This discussion probably belongs on the distutils list.
Ron Adam wrote:
Can I make my efforts in developing a (module, package, script, or
application) a lot easier if I keep certain things in mind? Are there
any best practices I should keep in mind if I intend to distribute my work?
Are
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Alex Gaynor alex.gay...@gmail.com wrote:
Python lists implement a pretty useless data structure
It's very difficult for ideas to gain traction when they
contain such
useless, and obviously wrong, rhetoric. There's an
enormous body of
code out there that begs to
Eric Smith wrote:
This discussion probably belongs on the distutils list.
Yes, the discussion should be.
I possibly should clarify that this is a list of questions that are of
interest as a topic and did not intend for them to be answered here.
I tried not to go into specific details for
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Steve Howell showel...@yahoo.com wrote:
The statement was meant 99% tongue in cheek. Like probably 99.99% of Python
programmers, I use lists all the time; that's why I want them to be more
versatile.
There's also a 1% element of truth to the statement. To
On 27Jan2010 23:08, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
| Cameron Simpson wrote:
| The proposed change to make pop(0) O(1) involves adding a base offset
| to the internal list implementation. Doesn't that incur a (small)
| overhead to _every_ list operation? Doesn't that weaken list as the
|
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 15:54, Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed that in the py3k doc 'mktemp' is marked as deprecated since Python
2.3 [1], but the function is still there and doesn't raise any warning.
Looking at the source I found out that there is a warning, but it is
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Chris Bergstresser ch...@subtlety.com writes:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au
wrote:
Neal Norwitz nnorw...@gmail.com writes:
Who knows, someone might even write a book
78 matches
Mail list logo
